> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:58 PM > To: Joyce Kong <[email protected]> > Cc: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Zhihong Wang <[email protected]>; Xiaolong Ye > <[email protected]>; Beilei Xing <[email protected]>; Jeff Guo > <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Matan > Azrad <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]>; > Viacheslav Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <[email protected]>; Phil Yang <[email protected]>; > Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>; dev <[email protected]>; nd > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] net/i40e: replace restrict with rte > restrict > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:21 AM Joyce Kong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Marchand <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:00 PM > > > To: Joyce Kong <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]>; > > > [email protected]; Zhihong Wang <[email protected]>; Xiaolong > > > Ye <[email protected]>; Beilei Xing <[email protected]>; > > > Jeff Guo <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John > > > <[email protected]>; Matan Azrad <[email protected]>; > Shahaf > > > Shuler <[email protected]>; Viacheslav Ovsiienko > > > <[email protected]>; Honnappa Nagarahalli > > > <[email protected]>; Phil Yang <[email protected]>; > > > Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>; dev <[email protected]>; nd > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] net/i40e: replace restrict > > > with rte restrict > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:50 AM Joyce Kong <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > '__rte_restrict' is a common wrapper for restricted pointers which > > > > can be supported by all compilers. Use '__rte_restrict' instead of > > > > '__restrict' for code consistency. > > > > > > This patch 4, 5 and 6 are simple replacements and can be squashed > > > into the first patch. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > The first patch is to add a common definition for lib_eal, could we > > squash the 4,5 and 6 into one replacement patch, while separate them > from the first one? > > This might be more convenient for review? > > A copy/paste commitlog hints that it did not deserve separate patches. > About easing reviews, the changes are mechanical, there is no special case. > I am not convinced but, go as you like. > > Can you provide a new revision wrt patch 1 problem? > Thanks. > > -- > David Marchand
Have just squashed the patch 4,5 and 6 into the first one, and corrected the issue with a new version. Thanks.
